Papua New Guinea vs Somalia: Trading across borders: Cost to import: Border compliance (USD)
Trading across borders: Cost to import: Border compliance (USD) over time
- Papua New Guinea
- Somalia
How they compare
Somalia currently reports 952 DB16-20 methodology against 940 DB16-20 methodology in Papua New Guinea, a difference of 12 DB16-20 methodology.
Across all 5 years both countries report, Somalia has been ahead every year.
Papua New Guinea ranks 20th and Somalia ranks 19th of 189 countries.
Somalia has averaged higher in every one of the 1 decades both report.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher trading across borders: cost to import: border compliance (usd), Papua New Guinea or Somalia?
- Somalia, at 952 DB16-20 methodology against 940 DB16-20 methodology in Papua New Guinea as of 2019.
- What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to import: border compliance (usd) between Papua New Guinea and Somalia?
- 12 DB16-20 methodology, with Somalia ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Papua New Guinea and Somalia?
- 5 years are reported by both, from 2015 to 2019.
- How do Papua New Guinea and Somalia rank globally for trading across borders: cost to import: border compliance (usd)?
- Papua New Guinea ranks 20th and Somalia ranks 19th of 189 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- The World Bank, published as Trading across borders: Cost to import: Border compliance (USD) (DB16-20 methodology). Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
The cost for border compliance to import records the cost associated with compliance with the economy’s customs regulations and with regulations relating to other inspections that are mandatory in order for the import shipment to cross the economy’s border, as well as the time and cost for handling that takes place at its port or border. It is calculated in US dollars. The cost for this segment include the cost for customs clearance and inspection procedures conducted by other agencies. For example, the cost for conducting a technical standard inspection would be included here. Informal payments for which no receipt is issued are excluded from the costs recorded. The component indicator is computed based on the methodology in the DB16-20 studies.